On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) over comments she made advocating for Palestinians to be free.
You’re wishing death upon Israel. What group of people predominantly live in Israel? Jews. Semites. Thus, antisemitic.
And if your solution is for Israel’s government to just disappear, you’ll be surprised to find that Hamas will treat the
Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists and pagans
no better. Don’t act like Hamas is offering the pinnacle of freedom from religious persecution. Let’s not forget that this is the same Hamas that has endorsed jihad against Jews.
You do realize a state can dissolve without literally everyone dying right? When East Germany and West Germany reunified the entire population of both countries didn’t die. When apartheid collapsed in South Africa all the settlers didn’t die.
How exactly do you read “death to Israel” as “the peaceful dissolution of the Israeli government and end of its apartheid conditions”?
When North Korea says “death to America,” surely they just mean a peaceful change of power, right?
And again, let’s not ignore that the power vacuum would quickly be filled by… Hamas, a terrorist group with a violent track record. Your Germany and South Africa examples are not like Israel.
“death to america” does refer to an end to the US empire- not the American people. I’ve talked with a fair number of Iranians who dislike their own government and Americas reign of terror around the world.
From “the river to the sea” means an end to the apartheid government in occupied Palestine. It’s projection from the murderous settlers that a unified non-apartheid state would mean their own extermination- because that’s what they do to the undesirables in their unified state.
Even if it is an Iranian cultural phrase that’s lost in translation into English, it lacks context. You’ve given the Iranian cultural context, but you’re completely ignoring the global context: the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Hamas has, quite literally, brought “death to Israel.”
If something needs context and explanation to not be antisemitic, it’s probably best to not say that thing rather than risk being antisemitic. Otherwise, you’re just demonstrating that you don’t care if you’re sounding antisemitic.
For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say “death to Israel” while Hamas is killing Israeli civilians and saying “death to Israel.” We cannot ignore the context of racial/religious tensions and the fact that these nations have racial/religious majorities.
The state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, that is the context for the tensions. Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day, and has been long before October 7. Before the European colony arrived, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed in Palestine.
For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say “death to Israel”
This is a bit of a nonsequiter. The US is islamaphobic, and the Iraq invasion was criminal, informed by chauvanism, orientalism, and islamophobia, but it’s hardly the equivalent of an occupied people resisting that occupation.
May they all be free from the river to the sea someday.
Comparing the hamas attack to the holocaust is like comparing an indigenous people’s raid of settler encampments to the holocaust. It is wildly inappropriate and ignores the difference in power between Jewish people under the nazis and Jewish people in a White Jewish ethnostate
the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Makes it sound like you think they’re of similar themes. Theyre not. One was a wholesale slaughter of an oppressed minority, the other was anticolonial violence directed at settlers.
Oh of fucking course it is going to be violent, unless the settler state caves. That is how anticolonial movements always go. But it is a lesser violence vs the continued violence its existence is predicated on.
Please pick up wretched of the earth by Fanon at your local library, it is a very necessary read for westerners.
It is antisemitic to equate calling for violence against Jewish settlers partaking in genocide to calling for violence against all Jews on the basis of being Jewish.
You’re being antisemitic. And if you aren’t Jewish, you need to shut the fuck up now. If you are, I’d be happy to explain why your position harms us as a whole.
Yeah, it really sucks that colonial violence makes anticolonial violence inevitable. Israel needs to stop doing colonial violence so that the anticolonial violence stops. It will never stop until the colonial violence stops or Israel exterminates all Palestinians.
This isn’t a threat this is just an understanding of historical materialism.
If you actually cared about Jewish people and weren’t interested in Jewish death to advance a settler colonial political project you’d be calling for an end to Israeli apartheid.
So here’s my honest question, why are the Jewish people relatively singled out as excluded from being allowed to desire a state/homeland? Is there an argument that the Jewish people did not originate from that area of the world, and if so, where is the actual Jewish homeland? Did the Jewish people spring forth fully developed from Zeus’s forehead? The argument seems to be that all indigenous peoples should have at least parts of their lands and autonomy restored to them all over the world; except for the Jews, because fuck them they don’t deserve a country for non-antisemetic reasons and they should have integrated into a new Arabic country of Palestine instead of splitting the land.
Ignoring the history of Jewish treatment in other countries around the globe for centuries, I don’t understand how, for a land that is the historical birthplace of several peoples, it is considered good for one of those peoples to fight for it and bad for another of those peoples to do the same. It all seems to come down to where anyone’s specific biases fall, while everyone claims to not have any biases.
You’re premise is nonsense, there are anti-apartheid movements whereever apartheid states exist. There was an anti-apartheid movement in South Africa way before now.
The premise that the Jewish people might deserve a country is nonsense? If it is, I am asking why do they not deserve one while other ethnicities do? Obviously an individuals views on whether Israel is running an apartheid state fall under the biases I mentioned, because some people do not recognize it as such, and I was not addressing the anti-apartheid movement. That definitely deserves its own discussion, but is layers above my question. South Africa is also different in that the apartheid government was formed from outside colonial settlers who had zero historic roots in the area. Israel/Palestine is closer to the bloody formations of India and Pakistan or the many other African wars caused by departing colonial powers arbitrarily redrawing maps on their way out, than South Africa’s white apartheid government in underpinning if not human cost.
I am asking what the people calling for Israel to cease existing and be replaced in it’s entirety by Palestine believe the Jewish people should do? If the region should be Palestine because of Palestinian genealogical roots, why do the Jews not get any claim in the region for the same reason? Is it because they were conquered and removed from the region in the past and the Palestinians weren’t? Mainly, if a two state solution isn’t desirable, it seems to be either because the Jewish people have insufficient or lacking genealogical claim in the region, or because they don’t deserve the same “rights” as the Palestinians for a myriad of other reasons.
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from. For that to be true, we have to acknowledge an absolute right of conquest for territory after a certain amount of time has elapsed. I believe a peaceful and fully autonomous two state solution is the most logically fair outcome, but am not holding my breath for that.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity? And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from.
Okay, two things
taking this logic at face value, no one can colonize specific areas of Africa where humans are from. So it is obviously wrong. Do you mean what you said or are you trying to say something else?
If Celtics colonized London and started doing apartheid that would also be unjustifiable.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
Why would the indigenous people forcefully get all the settlers out if they overthrew the system that was perpetuating genocide against them to this day? Have you talked to indigenous people about what their political project is?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity?
This relies on the reader buying into the assumption that territorial claims last forever.
Also buying into a notion of a homeland needing to be a settler colonial state.
You could have a secular Palestine where immigrant Jewish people could live in peace as equals alongside Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians, who had a long period of relative peace before the founding of the settler colonial project.
And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
You could argue that there isn’t, there is only a moral mandate to end the current systems of violence and take proactive measures to produce equity in material conditions.
“Death to Israel” isn’t antisemitic. A racist genocidal state must die for everyone in Palestine [Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists and pagans] to be free. https://www.threads.net/@torahjudaism/post/CzbmCTzuYRt/
Even if
is true, it doesn’t make this true:
You’re wishing death upon Israel. What group of people predominantly live in Israel? Jews. Semites. Thus, antisemitic.
And if your solution is for Israel’s government to just disappear, you’ll be surprised to find that Hamas will treat the
no better. Don’t act like Hamas is offering the pinnacle of freedom from religious persecution. Let’s not forget that this is the same Hamas that has endorsed jihad against Jews.
You do realize a state can dissolve without literally everyone dying right? When East Germany and West Germany reunified the entire population of both countries didn’t die. When apartheid collapsed in South Africa all the settlers didn’t die.
How exactly do you read “death to Israel” as “the peaceful dissolution of the Israeli government and end of its apartheid conditions”?
When North Korea says “death to America,” surely they just mean a peaceful change of power, right?
And again, let’s not ignore that the power vacuum would quickly be filled by… Hamas, a terrorist group with a violent track record. Your Germany and South Africa examples are not like Israel.
“death to america” does refer to an end to the US empire- not the American people. I’ve talked with a fair number of Iranians who dislike their own government and Americas reign of terror around the world.
From “the river to the sea” means an end to the apartheid government in occupied Palestine. It’s projection from the murderous settlers that a unified non-apartheid state would mean their own extermination- because that’s what they do to the undesirables in their unified state.
The government isn’t the people.
Marg bar Amrika
Reach.
Even if it is an Iranian cultural phrase that’s lost in translation into English, it lacks context. You’ve given the Iranian cultural context, but you’re completely ignoring the global context: the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Hamas has, quite literally, brought “death to Israel.”
If something needs context and explanation to not be antisemitic, it’s probably best to not say that thing rather than risk being antisemitic. Otherwise, you’re just demonstrating that you don’t care if you’re sounding antisemitic.
Peace be with you.
Israel isn’t all Jews, doesn’t represent all Jews, and it’s legit antisemitic to say that it is.
You are the one sounding antisemitic.
For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say “death to Israel” while Hamas is killing Israeli civilians and saying “death to Israel.” We cannot ignore the context of racial/religious tensions and the fact that these nations have racial/religious majorities.
The state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, that is the context for the tensions. Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day, and has been long before October 7. Before the European colony arrived, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed in Palestine.
This is a bit of a nonsequiter. The US is islamaphobic, and the Iraq invasion was criminal, informed by chauvanism, orientalism, and islamophobia, but it’s hardly the equivalent of an occupied people resisting that occupation.
May they all be free from the river to the sea someday.
Comparing the hamas attack to the holocaust is like comparing an indigenous people’s raid of settler encampments to the holocaust. It is wildly inappropriate and ignores the difference in power between Jewish people under the nazis and Jewish people in a White Jewish ethnostate
I did not compare these two events.
This part of the post
Makes it sound like you think they’re of similar themes. Theyre not. One was a wholesale slaughter of an oppressed minority, the other was anticolonial violence directed at settlers.
Oh of fucking course it is going to be violent, unless the settler state caves. That is how anticolonial movements always go. But it is a lesser violence vs the continued violence its existence is predicated on.
Please pick up wretched of the earth by Fanon at your local library, it is a very necessary read for westerners.
Okay so you are saying that:
Thus, “death to Israel” is calling for violence upon Jews. Antisemitic. Case closed.
It is antisemitic to equate calling for violence against Jewish settlers partaking in genocide to calling for violence against all Jews on the basis of being Jewish.
You’re being antisemitic. And if you aren’t Jewish, you need to shut the fuck up now. If you are, I’d be happy to explain why your position harms us as a whole.
Living in a place is not a reason to be killed. Being born in a place is not a reason to be killed.
Yeah, it really sucks that colonial violence makes anticolonial violence inevitable. Israel needs to stop doing colonial violence so that the anticolonial violence stops. It will never stop until the colonial violence stops or Israel exterminates all Palestinians.
This isn’t a threat this is just an understanding of historical materialism.
If you actually cared about Jewish people and weren’t interested in Jewish death to advance a settler colonial political project you’d be calling for an end to Israeli apartheid.
Bu-but the non-jewish allies have very strong feelings about protecting the european settler state!!
I heard some germans even donated supplies to it
I never said anything was antisemitic. I said that what you are saying is “Death to Israel”. And it seems that you agree.
Yes, death to Israel
So here’s my honest question, why are the Jewish people relatively singled out as excluded from being allowed to desire a state/homeland? Is there an argument that the Jewish people did not originate from that area of the world, and if so, where is the actual Jewish homeland? Did the Jewish people spring forth fully developed from Zeus’s forehead? The argument seems to be that all indigenous peoples should have at least parts of their lands and autonomy restored to them all over the world; except for the Jews, because fuck them they don’t deserve a country for non-antisemetic reasons and they should have integrated into a new Arabic country of Palestine instead of splitting the land.
Ignoring the history of Jewish treatment in other countries around the globe for centuries, I don’t understand how, for a land that is the historical birthplace of several peoples, it is considered good for one of those peoples to fight for it and bad for another of those peoples to do the same. It all seems to come down to where anyone’s specific biases fall, while everyone claims to not have any biases.
You’re premise is nonsense, there are anti-apartheid movements whereever apartheid states exist. There was an anti-apartheid movement in South Africa way before now.
The premise that the Jewish people might deserve a country is nonsense? If it is, I am asking why do they not deserve one while other ethnicities do? Obviously an individuals views on whether Israel is running an apartheid state fall under the biases I mentioned, because some people do not recognize it as such, and I was not addressing the anti-apartheid movement. That definitely deserves its own discussion, but is layers above my question. South Africa is also different in that the apartheid government was formed from outside colonial settlers who had zero historic roots in the area. Israel/Palestine is closer to the bloody formations of India and Pakistan or the many other African wars caused by departing colonial powers arbitrarily redrawing maps on their way out, than South Africa’s white apartheid government in underpinning if not human cost.
I am asking what the people calling for Israel to cease existing and be replaced in it’s entirety by Palestine believe the Jewish people should do? If the region should be Palestine because of Palestinian genealogical roots, why do the Jews not get any claim in the region for the same reason? Is it because they were conquered and removed from the region in the past and the Palestinians weren’t? Mainly, if a two state solution isn’t desirable, it seems to be either because the Jewish people have insufficient or lacking genealogical claim in the region, or because they don’t deserve the same “rights” as the Palestinians for a myriad of other reasons.
Literally no ethnicities deserve settler colonial apartheid states.
On that we are agreed. Should your statement be taken as the Jews being settler colonizers though? I would argue that an ethnicity cannot truly be a colonizer on the land they originated from. For that to be true, we have to acknowledge an absolute right of conquest for territory after a certain amount of time has elapsed. I believe a peaceful and fully autonomous two state solution is the most logically fair outcome, but am not holding my breath for that.
If the argument is that they are colonizers now, would the same be true in the extremely unlikely hypothetical that the United States was forced to return a state to the native tribes that were originally there? Would we call the returning native tribes settler colonizers if the current inhabitants had to leave the new tribal lands? The land has belonged to the current inhabitants for over 200 years after all, and if not, how long is the cutoff?
This mostly boils down to the question: if you can’t have a permanent loss of claim to a historical homeland through conquest, then why would there be an exception to this rule for the Jewish ethnicity? And if you can lose claim to a historical homeland if conquered well enough, why would there be any substance to return native lands anywhere else?
Okay, two things
taking this logic at face value, no one can colonize specific areas of Africa where humans are from. So it is obviously wrong. Do you mean what you said or are you trying to say something else?
If Celtics colonized London and started doing apartheid that would also be unjustifiable.
Why would the indigenous people forcefully get all the settlers out if they overthrew the system that was perpetuating genocide against them to this day? Have you talked to indigenous people about what their political project is?
This relies on the reader buying into the assumption that territorial claims last forever.
Also buying into a notion of a homeland needing to be a settler colonial state.
You could have a secular Palestine where immigrant Jewish people could live in peace as equals alongside Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians, who had a long period of relative peace before the founding of the settler colonial project.
You could argue that there isn’t, there is only a moral mandate to end the current systems of violence and take proactive measures to produce equity in material conditions.